This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0363
Case C-363/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union
Case C-363/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union
Case C-363/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union
OJ C 283, 28.8.2017, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.8.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/24 |
Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union
(Case C-363/17 P)
(2017/C 283/33)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
declare the appeal admissible and well-founded; |
|
— |
set aside the General Court's judgment in so far as it dismisses the claim for compensation of damages; |
|
— |
rule on the substance of the claim for compensation of damages and award the appellants the damages claimed, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Damages; and |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the appellants' costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court distorted and wrongly presented the evidence submitted by the Appellants when finding that there is no causal link between the unlawful adoption of Decision 2013/226 (1) and the damages incurred by the Appellants. (Contested Judgment, paragraphs 155 to 197, and in particular paragraphs 187 to 189).
(1) Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013, L 136, p. 12).